Introduction to the Exclusionary Rules of Evidence

”I have been treating Archie for stress. He is on tranquillisers. He can get very aggressive, particularly in relation to his wife. He is very jealous of anyone getting attention from his wife. ” (Dr. Manson) This shows as Archie was already a stressed person and had jealousy with Ben for being friendly with his wife. This evidence is very much relevant. Archie’s GP knew that he’s the guy who is jealous of anyone who gets involved with his wife. When his wife gives attention to anyone else then he had problems.

This is a very relevant and solid evidence against Archie’s conviction because there was no other reason for him to strike Ben. According to Ben Kingpin: “On 4th January I was in my living room hoovering the carpet. It was a sunny crisp winter day and I had the doors to my garden open to air the room. I had my back to the doors when I felt a blow to my head and shoulder. I fell to the floor and had blood pouring over my eyes. I caught a glimpse of my attacker from behind. The man – large build – was wearing a brown coat and a red hat.

I would be happy to attend an identity parade. ” (Ben Kindpin) Police: Exclusionary Rule. Exclusionary rule states that if any law enforcement agency has seized evidences obtained illegally from unwarranted searches will not be accepted in courts. Illegal searches of its citizen and any evidence found of that cannot be processed in the court for accused trial. It prohibits illegal searches and seizures by police. Exclusionary rule actually does not imply that police is unable to arrest anyone or trial of the accused will not be held.

But at least it would allow certain criminal cases go unchecked or unpunished. The reason is that any evidence detected by the police against the suspect, if not executed in court than criminals can get free without any punishment. It is very controversial in police role and power. Police sometimes reaches places of burglary and theft for instantaneous arresting. Sometimes it is not possible to obtain warrants when time is running out. Police speeds up to reach the place and carry out searches.

If it would give time to criminals to hide out their possessions and illegal belongings, while police is busy in making warrants to get the place searched, the burglars will run away in the meantime leaving no trace or evidence for police to conduct further search. But due to lack of any warrants, any evidence though very important might be excluded from the trial will lead the criminals free. However, usefulness of exclusionary rule is to avoid any misconduct, misuse of their power over citizens, violation citizen’s right by their misbehavior. Courts: good faith, exclusionary rule

The Fourth Amendment in U. S. constitution states that every person has right to be secure in his house and workplace and no searches will be conducted unless the legal one. Any evidence obtained by illegal and unwarranted searches will not be used by police in executing the trial in court. Police is stopped from violating the rights of the individuals and citizens. Exclusionary rule has become very controversial and court is facing many difficulties to decide how much of liberty should be provided to the citizens and to what extent they should be protected.

Erroneous searches by police will be excluded (Heffernan & Lovely, 1991). However, if officers conducted unwarranted searches with good faith and with some objectives their evidence is not excluded. Court will listen and the let that search legalized in good faith. In United States v. Leon (1), court didn’t recognize unwarranted searches as illegal because they were in good faith. Corrections: sentencing, death penalty, three strikes. Death penalty has changed a lot since its origin. It exempts mentally retarded from capital punishment.

It protects those for whom death punishment is unjust. However, protection to those who maintain that they are mentally retarded is not providing any protection to those who are victims of their violent behavior. In Ring v. Arizona, sentencing which was constitutional 12 years back was now regarded unconstitutional. When a case is reviewed its laws should not be changed as they are applied in most of the states. For resolving a conflict it is important to meditate, think and negotiate.

Different techniques are employed to be used for solving a conflict in useful manner. In wing v. California, stressed that California’s “three strikes” sentencing law is not breaking constitutional bar against cruel and unusual punishment. The lower level courts have to respect state court unless state court violates Supreme Court. Sentencing law states that only those criminals who qualify for the sentencing law. Crime should be very serious one for sentencing law to be imposed.

Due process has been successful in protecting individual rights in some cases while not very useful in other cases. Admissibility of Evidence The admissibility of evidence depends on three basic factors, i. e. relevancy, materiality and competence. When evidence is very much relevant to the fact then it is said to be relevant evidence. Evidence that he was not present at bar was is relevant to the case. Because in his normal routine he should be at bar at the time of conviction. Also evidence that he had prior record of violent behavior is very relevant to the current case.

Evidence is material when something that is usually not an important issue in law but becomes a point of evidence in that particular case as it “happened at that time”. For e. g. Archie was wearing a black coat and a red hat is a material evidence is a material evidence. Though, any one can have a black coat and red hat. But however, as this was the dress offender was wearing at the time he convicted the crime this became a material evidence to prove his guilt. Evidence is very competent if it is based on very reliable facts and reach certain standards.